Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
AMIT SETHI – Appellant
Versus
SH. LALIT SETHI – Respondent
Understood. Please provide the legal document content (inside
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff claims ancestral ownership rights. (Para 2 , 6 , 26) |
| 2. legal examination of partition's impact on ownership rights. (Para 4 , 10 , 14 , 30) |
| 3. interpretation of hindu succession act regarding inheritance. (Para 19 , 21 , 25) |
| 4. no actionable rights found for the plaintiff. (Para 32 , 35) |
JUDGMENT
I.A. 2205/2025 (under Order VII Ru le 11 of CPC)
The instant application is filed by defendants nos.1 and 2 for rejection of the present suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟) for being devoid of any cause of action and for failure to disclose the necessary facts.
Factual Matrix
2. The present suit is one for partition, wherein the plaintiff seeks a declaration that he is the absolute owner of his 1/5th share in property bearing No. C-76, AB, Kalkaji, New Delhi, measuring 200 sq. yds. (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”), along with other consequential reliefs.
3. A pedigree chart describing the relation of the parties in the instant lis is given as under: -
4. Therefore, it is seen that the parties to the instant suit are all legal heirs of the Sh. Ram Lal Sethi. The plaintiff and defendant no.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
